Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grandy Glaze

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was agreement that the subject fails to meet NSPORTS. Additionally, the greater weight of the discussion suggested that the extant independent coverage was insufficient to meet the GNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grandy Glaze[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable basketball player. Averaged a mere 3.8 points per game as a junior at St. Louis. In addition to not meeting GNG, the article is written to trump up his meager achievements. He's got a cool name though, thats for sure. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree in that this article does not meet WP:GNG; there are multiple reliable sources provided in the article that mention this player (ESPN and Yahoo! Sports). However, this person does not meet WP:NSPORTS (specifically, WP:NHOOPS), in that his participation is at the college level, not the NBA or National Sports level. However, WP:NSPORTS states, "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". Since this article meets WP:GNG ( ESPN, Yahoo! Sports, St. Louis Post, and Las Vegas Sun), this article meets the criterion for notability and should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs)
- Yes he has coverage is some cases, but the majority of it (e.g. the Rivals article), it is routine and trivial. Bear in mind that Glaze has not accomplished much of anything on the college level YET (that might change in the upcoming year, but we are not a crystal ball). An injury does not count. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: As much as I don't like to say this for a player that clearly hasn't done anything on the court, he has received a fair amount of independent coverage, quite a portion that is in depth (see Las Vegas Sun, Fox Sports, Arc authority - possibly blog though, Sporting News, Trib.com and Brampton Guardian). There's also the Saint Louis Dispatch source quoted by the unamed editor above (can that comment please be signed). Whilst there are definitely content and referencing problems with the article he does seem to pass the notability requirement, of course that's because the college game is overreported but we have to follow the guideline. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any article among the sources that rises above the level of routine coverage. The articles are little more than transfer and injury announcements. As a DI team, St. Louis receive a certain amount of routine coverage, which would include articles on any rotation players who get hurt or transfer. Basing notability on this would make any player notable who gets hurt while playing for or transfers in or out of a program in a multi-bid league, or maybe even most of DI. If the consensus is that this is ok, I'm fine with that, but I personally believe that injuries and transfers are routine coverage of a notable program, and Glaze would be more appropriately mentioned within season articles for the team as a recruit, a departure, and notes about how his injury affected the season in question.SCMatt33 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and SCMatt33. The coverage doesn't rise to the level of substantial, in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG, and he definitely doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't WP:ATHLETE a lower standard than WP:GNG?. A college athlete would need a major award, hall of fame induction, or media attention as an individual (not just along with the team). A pro athlete would need to play one game in a "major professional league". GNG would require significant coverage. According to WP:NHOOPS, this subject's chances would be if his pro team was considered a "major professional league". Jacona (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, I thought Grand Canyon was a minor-league professional team. This athlete doesn't rise to the standard of "a major award, hall of fame induction, or media attention as an individual" needed by an amateur player, so delete, for now. Good luck next year! Jacona (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS and has only routine coverage which fails WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.